The two projects are interesting for different reasons: for the Pasadena project, it's the size of the venue (one 99-seat theater and one 60-seat space); in LA, it's the debate about the arts and urban planning.

Branson claims that tiny theaters are the only economically viable spaces for his market (but then defines their benefits by the audience experience: "intimate," "experimental"). His business associate reinforces the economic argument, saying that equity only demands a $15 actor stipend for such small spaces (but they plan to pay $25).

Gilmore's issues are also about venue size, but instead of being 'pro-small', he's 'anti-big', railing against his community's fascination with very large venues that he says have little on-going impact. This is from the article:

So, if your goal is to change the dynamics of a community, how many seats does it take? Many cities across the country are banking on fairly large performing arts spaces that can host Broadway tours and top-choice performers (usually around 2500 seats). In the process, some cities have overlooked the lower, less developed ecosystems that make a more subtle difference (experimental theater, funky night spots, entrepreneurial entertainment ventures, alternative live music venues, etc.). Note the similar theme to my earlier post about orchestras.

In Madison, Wisconsin, my home turf, the argument has extended beyond the arts ecosystem to the business ecosystem. With the construction of a major new arts center, the local retailers are starting to feel the common consequence of focused cultural investment‹higher rents (here's a story from last fall on the subject).

Could it be, as in most ecosystems, that both big fish and little fish (and other organisms) are required for dynamic, creative, vibrant communities over the long haul? It's funny how the big and the little in these projects seem to talk at each other rather than with each other.